Why no TRPs when on the attack?

[SirReal]

It seems to me that limiting the use of target reference points to the defender is unrealistic. In fact, I think a stronger case can be made for the attacker to have them, rather than the defender.

I suggest that the simple solution is to allow either side to have them when the battle type is not meeting engagement or probe; and that the TRP "unit" is moved from the "fortification" type to the "artillery" type.

/SirReal

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by SirReal:

It seems to me that limiting the use of target reference points to the defender is unrealistic. In fact, I think a stronger case can be made for the attacker to have them, rather than the defender.

I suggest that the simple solution is to allow either side to have them when the battle type is not meeting engagement or probe; and that the TRP "unit" is moved from the "fortification" type to the "artillery" type.

/SirReal

I'll second that. It doesn;'t take all that much effort or information to set one up. Certainly, it should be available in an "Assault" scenario; it's absence is puzzling.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SirReal:

It seems to me that limiting the use of target reference points to the defender is unrealistic. In fact, I think a stronger case can be made for the attacker to have them, rather than the defender.

While I disagree that the attacker is more likely to possess them than the defender—who would likely have had more time in position to reconnoiter the ground and register TRPs—I agree with all the rest of your post. It is indeed one of the present game's more glaring oversights.

Michael

[Sergei]

I agree. Yet I'd like them to work better and be cheaper for the defender, because the defender is more likely to be able to walk around the battlefield with a measuring chain and watch where artillery spotting rounds hit. How is the attacker supposed to pre-register a target deep inside the enemy zone? With Ninja FO's?

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Sergei:

How is the attacker supposed to pre-register a target deep inside the enemy zone? With Ninja FO's?

Yes, I believe that was how it was done. Directly imported from mainland Japan.

I'm not a grog, I just know that they did use preplanned fire when on the attack. And the current system doesn't seem to give enough flexibility to the attacker with regards to fireplans, walking barrages etc.

/SirReal

[Andreas]

The problem is that currently TRPs are not just for artillery, but also give boresighting for guns etc. Which is probably less appropriate for the attacker than the defender.

I am not sure whether it is not more realistic to simulate this through the use of a fireplan. I know it would not be today, but especially with the Wehrmacht and the Red Army and their comparative reliance on wire instead of radio, this may give too much flexibility to the attacker.

The problem with fireplans is of course that in a QB you do not have the information to plan it as you should. So really it maybe an information problem (lack of it reduces the value of the fireplan in the game for QBs and scenarios with no intel).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SirReal:

I'm not a grog, I just know that they did use preplanned fire when on the attack. And the current system doesn't seem to give enough flexibility to the attacker with regards to fireplans, walking barrages etc.

I agree with all that. But it needs to be recalled that in most cases the defender would still hold the advantage in preparation.

The point has been made many times on this forum that the entire artillery system in CM needs a makeover. The issues you raise should certainly be included.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The problem is that currently TRPs are not just for artillery, but also give boresighting for guns etc. Which is probably less appropriate for the attacker than the defender.

Definitely. I hope one of the things the engine rewrite will do is to separate the artillery and boresighting functions onto distinct markers.

Michael

[SirReal]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The point has been made many times on this forum that the entire artillery system in CM needs a makeover. The issues you raise should certainly be included.

Has there been any official or semi-official response, as to when and what BFC would like to change with the current system?

/SirReal

[IntelWeenie]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The problem is that currently TRPs are not just for artillery, but also give boresighting for guns etc.

I thought you only get this bonus if you have not moved? That would make this less of an issue for attackers, but still an issue nonetheless.

I, too, would like to see some changes to the artillery system.

For boresight markers, how about combining them with the old ambush markers?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SirReal:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The point has been made many times on this forum that the entire artillery system in CM needs a makeover. The issues you raise should certainly be included.

Has there been any official or semi-official response, as to when and what BFC would like to change with the current system?</font>

[SirReal]

If indeed the TRPs give to-hit bonuses for direct fire guns that haven't moved, then I understand why the TRPs aren't available for attackers.

On the other hand, pre-ranging guns once in place... I thought that was standard practice? It certainly is today. Wouldn't it be better to give a to-hit bonus to any unit that hasn't moved, then?

Or, if establishing range to terrain features from the gun position wasn't that common, a "ranging spot" marker. Any unit close to that spot when firing gets a bonus, simulating that from this spot, we have indeed made measurements prior to battle. This would also allow tanks to be parked in full defilade before moving into a hulldown spot with a "ranging marker".

/SirReal

[WineCape]

Originally posted by SirReal:

It seems to me that limiting the use of target reference points to the defender is unrealistic. In fact, I think a stronger case can be made for the attacker to have them, rather than the defender.

Do try my scenario called Botrytis II here, which BTW needs some play testing.

It is a Russian probe (in essence) or attack (according to Stalin's directive then!); both sides have TRP's at their disposal for obvious scenario reasons...

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

[ August 25, 2003, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by SirReal:

On the other hand, pre-ranging guns once in place... I thought that was standard practice? It certainly is today. Wouldn't it be better to give a to-hit bonus to any unit that hasn't moved, then?

If you had time and freedom to roam the battlefield. Laser rangefinders weren't that common in those days, so the normal practise was to send two guys with a measure running around (still practised in FDF). For a prepared defense this would be obvious, but a bit more difficult if the spot which you wanted to register was inside enemy lines. So it's like with trenches - giving them to all defenders would be too much.

[zukkov]

the question i have is this. were there actual cases of the attacker pre-registering fire before a battle, then being able to call in that fire on the fly as opposed to prep bombardment?

[Hans]

Arty preparation for the attack

Yep you register either on a target within the enemy zone and take the corrections from that data (comparing should hit to does hit data) and you can apply it to other targets you cannot see (map and aerial photo spot).

Registration is just firing on the target and recording the data. This gives up some tactical suprize but there are a number of ways to mask it.

TRPs in the attack would normally be on easily seen and recognized terrain features that observers could adjust from.

Hans - an old FO, FIST and FSO

[IntelWeenie]

*Disclaimer*

I am not, nor have ever been, a redleg!

*End Disclaimer*

As I understand it, you don't need to actually fire rounds to register a target. Most of the work is done mathematically using maps and firing tables. Spotting rounds were (and still are) used to make small adjustments to compensate for variable conditions like wind direction/velocity, relative humidity, barrel wear, etc.

[Hans]

Hey Intelweenie

Basicly you are correct, however that cannot compensate for bad survey (maps are approximations), powder lots (who made it and when - they tend to differ between manufacturers and quality control can and is a problem). Each gun in a battery has a 'personality' and fires differently - especially as it ages and wears out.

I won't even mention off standard shell weights and configuration (aaaaaahhhhhh - artillerymens nightmare to have say, 155mm shells that should be the same but were manufactured in difference places are shaped slightly difference and even worse weigh differently)

Registration also removes (not all) gun crew, observer and FDC error.

You can get accurate 'scientific' fire by transferring data but that is a BIG task and only applicable to set piece attacks.

Of course the more your register-the more accurate you get BUT the bad guys get a better idea of were your guns are and counter-battery comes into effect.

Hopefully they can work that subtle aspect into CMx2.

[Michael Emrys]

I'm hoping that counter-battery fire will be accounted for in some manner.

Michael

[Hans]

Yes I think counter-fire should be in. You could purchase it as "points" and it would do two things, reduce and delay off board enemy artillery. Cause live firing at on board indirect systems.

In the set up an attack/ME a commander would set how much time he spent on artillery registration-the more you do the better the accuracy (and the more TRPs) but also the better targets the enemy has of your guns.

Could be interesting.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Hans:

Yes I think counter-fire should be in. You could purchase it as "points" and it would do two things, reduce and delay off board enemy artillery. Cause live firing at on board indirect systems.

I think off-map CB should be kept as simple as possible. I do not presently see any good reason to make it very complicated and keeping code simple and elegant is a good thing.

To that end, I would keep fire against on-map guns & mortars out of the CB mechanism and let it be handled by whatever normal artillery modules you have purchased.

In the set up an attack/ME a commander would set how much time he spent on artillery registration-the more you do the better the accuracy (and the more TRPs) but also the better targets the enemy has of your guns.

An interesting thought worth pursuing IMO.

Michael

[IntelWeenie]

Another random "marker" thought...

Instead of just having TRPs, make "fire mission markers". These would be purchased like normal TRPs (but in the arty category) and placed on the map (by either attacker or defender - not available in ME) during setup. Where they would differ from the current system is that there is no Arty Observer involved, but they are "fired" during the normal course of a game using their own orders menu and would not be adjustable (since there's no FO).

These markers would basically take the place of higher-headquarters (Div, Corps, Army) FOs for most pre-planned fire. The cost of the higher-HQ FOs may need to be increased a bit also since I feel they are now a little too flexible in use. I don't think you'd see a battery of guns from Corps or Army assets being placed "on-call" to a company or even Battalion too often in any army in WWII!

Hans, yes, I remember seeing a film back in my Army days about how arty is "done". I never knew until then that there were so many different little factors that could have such great impact on accuracy!

I'm not too sure about counter-battery fire. That might push the boundaries of Bn and lower combat a little too much, I think... :confused:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

I don't think you'd see a battery of guns from Corps or Army assets being placed "on-call" to a company or even Battalion too often in any army in WWII!

The British/Canadian armies did it routinely in the ETO. So did the Americans, but I think they may have started a little later in implementing it.

Edit/added: I may have misunderstood what you mean by "on-call". The practice I described was not that the FO had exclusive use of a battery of higher level arty for the duration of the battle, but that if he had a target of sufficiently high priority, he could shout for every gun within range and get it.

I'm not too sure about counter-battery fire. That might push the boundaries of Bn and lower combat a little too much, I think... :confused:

Depends. If the other side has a lot of artillery, and this is the part of the front where the major action is taking place, corps and army would as a matter of course detail arty assets to CB missions. Maybe the best way to handle this is after the defending player buys all his artillery modules, the program rolls a die and simply scratches a certain percentage of them, or they are delayed in coming into use.

Michael

[ August 26, 2003, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[IntelWeenie]

Oh, dear. I'm afraid "on-call" may be a semantic challenge murky enought to challenge "sniper vs. sharpshooter"! :eek:

For that matter, what are the thoughts on how the FOs are currently modeled (taking into account cost, delay times, etc.)? Are they more representative of a battery at the exclusive call of a unit (less likely for the higher levels, although I won't deny it happened in some cases) or are delay times supposed to (help) represent the FO having to wait his turn for battery access? This is where I think there's something of a disconnect in the arty model now. The tasking and chain of command for a FO for Bn level mortars is quite different than for a FO for Army 8" guns. In the game, the only real differences are price, delay time and # of rounds fired.

[Michael Emrys]

Re delay times and what they represent: Someone explained that in a thread a few months ago. To the best of my recollection, the delay represents the time it takes for the request to work its way up the artillery chain of command, and for the orders to be worked out and passed to the batteries, the guns re-layed, etc.

Perhaps a search under "artillery" in the period 3-6 months ago would turn it up.

Michael